nanog mailing list archives
Re: Multicast Internet Route table.
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 18:05:42 +0200 (CEST)
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
I have never used interdomain multicast but I imagine the global m-routing table would quickly become large.
I have set up interdomain routing connecting both to a few peers and a Tier1 transit provider. Not many non-research networks to be seen.
Also, since we didn't use it it kept breaking and I had to fix it every two years or so, where it probably had been down for months.
I don't believe in Internet-wide multicast happening in current incarnation, it's just too fragile and too few people are using it. It wouldn't scale either due to all the state that needs to be kept.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Multicast Internet Route table. S, Somasundaram (Somasundaram) (Sep 01)
- Re: Multicast Internet Route table. William F. Maton Sotomayor (Sep 02)
- Re: Multicast Internet Route table. John Kristoff (Sep 02)
- Re: Multicast Internet Route table. Corey Touchet (Sep 02)
- Re: Multicast Internet Route table. Justin M. Streiner (Sep 02)
- Re: Multicast Internet Route table. William Herrin (Sep 02)
- Re: Multicast Internet Route table. Octavio Alvarez (Sep 02)
- Re: Multicast Internet Route table. Jeff Tantsura (Sep 02)
- Re: Multicast Internet Route table. William F. Maton Sotomayor (Sep 02)
- Re: Multicast Internet Route table. Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 02)
- Re: Multicast Internet Route table. Dale W. Carder (Sep 02)
- Re: Multicast Internet Route table. Greg Shepherd (Sep 02)
- Re: Multicast Internet Route table. Corey Touchet (Sep 02)
- Re: Multicast Internet Route table. Michael Hallgren (Sep 02)
- Re: Multicast Internet Route table. John Kristoff (Sep 02)